[qsera]

>I am clearly talking about both positive and negative effects of drugs.

Then you are answering to a point that was not raised.

> most lovely features in an environment of complete information, which this is not. The more the information asymmetry (or complete ignorance) there is, the less-well markets work...

I am well aware. But for what I as well as the parent is saying, this only require information regarding if the thing works or not for the people who use it as long as that information is not censored.

[estearum]

Uhh... the question was "can the market detect efficacy." My answer is: Generally no, and it also can't detect negative effects either.

That's answering the question.

> this only require information regarding if the thing works or not for the people who use it as long as that information is not censored.

Can "the market" currently detect whether there is complex life in the Messier 54 star cluster?

No.

Is it because that information is censored?

No.

It's because that information doesn't exist.

Or more specifically, because that information is indistinguishable from noise. Even in the scenario of cigarettes' extremely strong effect (stronger than nearly every drug) deployed at massive scale (higher scale than nearly every drug), it required decades to establish causality.

Especially in the regime of drugs being released to market solely on safety data, the information about whether they work would be generally indistinguishable from noise. For way, way longer than cigarettes given the smaller population, smaller effect sizes, and the (presumed) proliferation of noisy concomitant "medications."

Do you think companies spend billions of dollars running RCTs for fun? The FDA doesn't require RCTs, they require only strong evidence of efficacy and safety. They do ultra-expensive RCTs because without them, it's virtually impossible for anyone to know – including the patients themselves – whether the drugs work.

[qsera]

>because that information is indistinguishable from noise.

Not if the signal is strong. Whether a thing works or not, is a pretty strong signal. Your equating it to bad effects of smoking is flawed and is not comparable.

You other arugments are also pretty bizzare, but not going into that for sake of focus.

[estearum]

Well, with an argument like that!

> if the signal is strong, it will be visible

> your specific example of it taking decades of massive deployment and close scrutiny to detect an effect significantly stronger than most drugs is ummm... flawed and not comparable for no reason I can articulate

okay buddy

That's okay, you're someone who thinks the FDA is in cahoots with insurers and drug companies to approve ineffective or unsafe drugs at scale lmao. And here you are arguing that the market would actually naturally detect exactly that.

[qsera]

> to detect an effect significantly stronger than most drugs..

What the heck are you smokin? Did paracetamol have a weaker affect on temperature than smoking causing cancer?

[estearum]

That is correct. Smoking has a stronger effect on cancer rates than paracetamol does on fever (which itself is an extremely strong effect that can be proven in RCTs of just a few dozen people - far stronger than most drugs on the market).

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

[qsera]

And thank you for demonstrating mine..